« AnteriorContinuar »
Opinion of the Court.
as well as that it might indefinitely continue, is wholly inconsistent with the theory of a sale. Indeed, the only indicium of a sale is the provision that the identical property received need not be returned, but that other property of a similar kind might be substituted. Plaintiff in error relies in this connection upon a line of cases which hold that, where a man turns over personal property to another, under an arrangement by which the latter is not obliged to restore the specific articles of property, but is at liberty to deliver other property of the same kind and value, the receiver becomes the owner of the property; as where wheat is delivered to an elevator with the understanding that the obligation to return it shall be discharged by the delivery of other like wheat, Story on Bailments, $ 439; Lonergan v. Stewart, 55 Illinois, 44; Bretz v. Diehl, 117 Penn. St. 589; Smith v. Clark, 21 Wend. 83; Johnston v. Browne, 27 Iowa, 200, although even then, a usage to return substituted property may turn the transaction into a bailment. Erwin v. Clark, 13 Michigan, 10. But these authorities have no application to the case under consideration. Here there was no provision for a substituted property beyond that required by the nature of the property delivered. The arrangement was to be indefinite in its continuance. The property was mostly animals which would necessarily die, be sold or slaughtered in a few years, and a gradual substitution of their progeny or other similar cattle, and a renewal of worn out implements, was all that was contemplated. The stipulation that this might be done was a mere incident of the main agreement by which the property was to be returned in like good order and condition as received.
The son was undoubtedly entrusted with extensive powers, but no greater than the management of a large farm would necessarily require. The father had become an old man, and naturally wished to rid himself of the responsibility, even of supervision, and to put his son upon the footing of an independent farmer. It is possible that he contemplated leaving the property to his son upon his death; but it was clearly his intention to reserve the power of revoking the arrangement in case it did not prove satisfactory to him. As the father remained in possession of the farm, there was nothing in the mere fact that he
Statement of the Case.
entrusted his son with the management, that was necessarily calculated to mislead creditors into the belief that the latter was the owner of the property. Apparently the receiver was unable to produce evidence manifestly inconsistent with the agreement as sworn to by both father and son, and their testimony authorized the jury to find the ownership of the property to be in the former.
Similar agreements have been sustained as against creditors in a number of cases. Chatard v. O'Donovan, 80 Indiana, 20; Wilbur v. Sessin, 53 Barb. 258; Bowman v. Bradley, 101 Penn. St. 351 ; Kerrains v. People, 60 N. Y. 221; Haywood v. Miller, 3 Hill, 90; Brown v. Scott, 7 Vermont, 57; Peters v. Smith, 42 Illinois, 422; State v. Curtis, 4 Dev. & Battle Law (N. C.), 222.
There was no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and it is therefore
HYDE v. BISHOP IRON COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
No. 126. Argued January 29, 30, 1900. - Decided April 9, 1900.
On the evidence set forth in the statement of facts and in the opinion of
the court, it is held, that there was on the part of the entryman a distinct violation of section 2262 of the Revised Statutes, with regard to contracts by which the tract for which he applies is not to inure to another's benefit, and the adverse judgment of the court below is sustained.
On April 3, 1895, the Bishop Iron Company, one of the defendants in error, filed in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of Minnesota, in and for the county of St. Louis, its complaint in ejectment, alleging that it was the absolute owner in fee simple and entitled to the immediate possession of the undivided in of the following described land, situate in the county of St. Louis, to wit: The N.E. 1 of the S.W.
Statement of the Case.
4 of section 30, township 63 north, range 11 west of the fourth principal meridian, and that it was the lessee of the remaining undivided in of said land under a lease in writing from and executed by the owners in fee simple of said remaining undivided 13, by the terms of which lease plaintiff was entitled to the immediate, sole and exclusive possession of said undivided 13; that the defendant, the present plaintiff in error, on January 1, 1895, wrongfully and unlawfully entered into and took possession of said tract, and had ever since kept possession thereof. The prayer of the complainant was for possession, for costs and disbursements. The defendant answered and filed a cross petition, and on his application certain parties were made defendants to that cross petition. He subsequently filed an amended answer and cross petition.
In the latter these facts are alleged : That ever since August 20, 1884, the petitioner has been in the actual, open and exclusive possession of the tract in controversy; that at the time of his taking possession it was unoccupied and unsurveyed land of the United States; that prior to July 20, 1885, the lands in that district were duly surveyed and an approved plat thereof filed in the land office at Duluth, Minnesota, that being the land office of the district in which those lands are situated; that on July 20, 1885, he duly offered to the local land office and made application to file his declaratory statement for said tract and lots 5 and 6 and the S.E. 1 of the N.W. I of said section 30, and tendered the fees required by law to be paid on said application and filing; that he was informed by the local land officers that they would reject such application unless limited to the tract in controversy ; that he then and there notified said local land officers that his house and the land he cultivated were upon and within said tract, and that he desired and intended to claim the same as a preëmption, whether or not he was successful in a contest which he had in reference to the other tracts in the application; that he was told by them that if he was a settler in good faith his rights would be protected; that on the same day, but without his knowledge, the register made this indorsement upon the application:
“ Land Office, Duluth, Minn., July 20th, 1885. The within
Statement of the Case.
application to file D.S. on the within described land is refused as to the S.E. I of the N.W. I and lots 5 and 6 of Sec. 30, T. 63, R. 11 W. for the reason that the date of settlement alleged herein does not antedate the unadjusted location of Sioux half breed scrip No. 19 E, in the name of Orille Moreau, filed for location June 16, 1883. Said unadjusted scrip location having withdrawn said land from settlement under the preëmption law subsequent to said date of filing of said scrip, to wit, June 16, 1883, you are allowed thirty days for appeal, and are advised that if you fail to do so within that time, this decision will be final."
That said officers retained said application, and also indorsed it as follows: "Filed Aug. 20, 1885;" that ignorant of this last indorsement, and within the proper time, after July 20, 1885, he formally appealed from the action of the local land office to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which appeal was duly transmitted to that office on August 20, 1885; that thereafter, and on October 15, 1885, one Joseph H. Sharp, claiming to be the attorney in fact of James H. Warren, located the tract in controversy in the name of the said Warren, filing in support of said location certain Chippewa Indian scrip; that petitioner was ignorant of this location and filing until April 10, 1886, and then he made application in the local land office to contest said selection and location, and this application was also transmitted by the local land officers to the General Land Office at Washington.
The cross petition further alleged that on June 16, 1883, and before the surveys had been made of these lands, Orille Moreau, by her attorney in fact, located Sioux half breed scrip Nos. 19 D and 19 E on lands therein described by metes and bounds, which locations, after the surveys, were adjusted by the local land officers in the name of the locator, as follows: Scrip No. 19 D upon lots 3, 5 and 6 and the S.E. 1 of the N.W. of said section 30, and No. 19 E upon lots 1 and 2 and the S.W. 1 of the N.E. I and the N.W. 1 of the S.E. 1 of said section 30; that on October 9, 1884, petitioner instituted a contest in the local land office against the said location of scrip No. 19 D, and on October 19, 1884, Angus McDonald a like contest against the
Statement of the Case.
location of said scrip No. 19 E; that on the hearing of this latter contest the following testimony was received:
“ Testimony of S. F. White. “S. F. White, being duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says: I am one of the attorneys for the contestant; I have made careful search through my safe and among all my papers for the contract of security given me by the contestants in these cases to secure me for advances and legal services and I am unable to find it. I supposed until about two or three days before the day set for hearing that it was in the files of the case in my office, but I have looked through that and could not find it and have made a careful search through my safe and among all my papers where I thought it could be, and have continued that search at various times up to this morning when I made a last final search through my safe and have been unable to find it, and have no idea where it is.”
“ Testimony of Mr. Hyde. “Q. Did you have any contract with Mr. White in writing or otherwise by which he was to receive any compensation or interest in the land ?
“A. Yes, there was a contract.
A. I have not seen it since it was drawn by Mr. White. “Q. What did it contain?
“A. It contained when I prove up on the land I was to secure him on a one half interest.
“Q. Who witnessed the contract?
“A. Powers, McDonald and myself and Mr. White were together; that is all I recollect. I can't say whether Powers witnessed it or not. The last I knew of the contract Mr. White had it. Mr. Powers was not included in the contract with McDonald and myself and White."
“ Mr. McDonald's Testimony. “Mr. White has furnished me the supplies to keep me on the